Does Capitalism represent the best economic ideology?

Obviously, since the exhaustive fall of the only notorious opponent of Capitalism, that is Communism, no one has ever
objurgated anymore our(at least for most) so-called perfect economic mechanism. Goofs like the
Stock-Market-Crash-of-1929 were nothing more than little blunders created by money avidity according the capitalist
henchmen . Notwithstanding, lurking beneath this pageantry of glorifications and propitious contemporary effects on rich
nations, we ignore drastically the real underpinning blights of this ideology:for example, the mentality based on the
will to maximize the profits, and this, even though it might have disastrous repercussions. For instance, wood
industries don't care about destroying the majority of essential forests and chemical industries don't pay attention
over the environment. If our recent sensibilization as regards these noxious acts didn't exist, it appeared
they(industries, tycoons) will continue without any impediments. Just by seeing the monetary power of Bill Gates ( 100
billions of US dollars), capable thereby to inveigle the most stern of gouvernment, their influence increases in a
tremendous trice and, of course, there are no limits( consequence of capitalism: mondialization). Indeed, a monarch had
some powers but not as ominous as Tycoons' powers. At last , it exists a myriad of colloraries like the augmentation of
poverty-richness discrepancy, thraldom of weak or fledgling nations by richer ones, etc. Furthermore, I have even heard
that 4 % of population of the world possesses together the sum of all country PIB.
Interesting to see that this basic statement, profit motive, possesses so much consequences, not only good
results.

Anyway, anyone, cogitate, mull over this and express yourselves.

Empixus Xast
:angry: :)

By the way, you can afford your own economic ideology coming from the figment of your imagination as an idea........

Quote by ArinamiCapitalism with
government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.

Laissez-faire capitalism, or the unrestricted sort you speak of is of course a nineteenth century system of economy that
has very much outlived it's useful lifespan. Compassionate conservatives, and advocates of the unfettered free market
will claim that by loosening up restrictions on big business and granting the upper class kickbacks and tax cuts will
provide economic incentive for growth, but this is all just an excuse to dismantle the new deal and funnel more wealth
upward.

Capitalism is not a bad system when properly regulated and bridled, although when you remove the yoke that keeps it
under control, you begin to see many of the practices that it has been infamous for in portrayals such as Upton
Sinclair's "The Jungle", and other sorts of illegal or deleterious activity. Laissez-faire capitalism in it's
essence does not care about the average worker, once the unions are (completely) disassembled and broken, the wages
bottom out to paltry levels, and practices such as hiring on scabs, rampant outsourcing, and blacklisting occur.

The environment according to most capitalist enterprise is an afterthought as Arinami mentioned above. The costs of
harvesting or extraction of resources is taken into account, although none of the long-term environmental effects are
mentioned, or have any mind paid to them. This shortsightedness is of course extremely dangerous in the ecological
context for obvious reasons. With decreasing biodiversity and habitat destruction comes the prospect that within the
next fifty years if changes are not made, that we may very well be in serious trouble as a species.

There is an old Chinese curse that states: "May you live in interesting times."; And to date, we do live in
times that do resound with this same epitaph. It is not too late to reverse the problems that are present in this
society, or worldwide. Many aspects such as unbridled individualism (along the lines of laissez-faire) in the big
business environment cannot be allowed to exist, sure it nets in more votes for the politicians who endorse such
measure, although in the long run it is more harmful to the economy, and the nation's people than it is beneficial.
Perhaps one day people will realize this, that there is more to their choice of candidate than the "moral"
issues that are tacked onto or associated with each respective party. Destruction of series of particularly momentous
reforms (I.E. the proposed privatization of social security) in favor of policies that favor tax cuts to the rich should
raise more than a few warning lights, especially when the economic policy of the current Republican party was all laid
and set in stone almost eighty years ago, with a treasurer named Andrew Mellon; And all of it matches to a near perfect
degree of what I mentioned above.

Still, either the current system needs to be either re-tooled and modified to be once again made free of the
de-regulations, or replaced entirely with an alternate system, or perhaps even a new economic system that we do not
currently possess. Existing as it does will inevitably lead to disaster, perhaps even another great depression which
will take years to recover from. I'd certainly hope that there is at least some foresight to prevent these sorts of
things from spiraling completely out of control, as of yet, it is apparent that nobody in the business world is doing
much thinking ahead, and that worries me.

Then again, perhaps they're all so far entrenched in their bubbles that they don't want to think ahead, and through
their sickness of greed have refused to acknowledge consequences for their actions. Either it's government regulation or
extensive overhaul for peaceful solution, no others will do if we are to keep a stable economy.

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with
it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon
the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large
chu..."

The best economic policy is determined by our current resource demand, currency, trends, and the status of the world
market. For example, looking back in the times where money is just gold or olive oil, the most appropriate policy might
be feudalism or the like. Now we have money and international trade, it can be considered capitalism. In the future
where bank money becomes the general means of currency, changes can be made to modify our current system. Government
control over several market failures can be modified in the future. Allthough capitalism might have become an
appropriate economic policy, it will become obsolete in the future where our lifestyles and technology are
different.

Quote by ArinamiCapitalism with
government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.

It's really hard to make this claim. What you're saying is correct if, and only if, the government has no vested
interest in the corporations themselves. Heard of the railroad monopolies? Those were due entirely to government
intervention. The purpose of government is to protect people from each other and from other powers. That's it. By
involving themselves in economics, yes they find a way to tame and control the wild fluctuations, but they also heavily
regulate policies that influence how business happens. Becuase of this, it is in big business's best interest to get a
hold of politicians' ears and make it worth their while to pay attention to what big business wants. Better yet, make
all the top government officials (oil?) (weapons?) tycoons and see where that leads you. Wait, I guess we've already
done that.

Please do not make such uninformed assertions. Globalization is an effect of the free flow of capital across national
boundaries. In otherwords, it is an effect of capitalism in the global economy. Globalization is not a system of
economy.

Quote by miaowmiaowmiaowMy stand is just based on my knowledge of the
history of economics...

The best economic policy is determined by our current resource demand, currency, trends, and the status of the world
market. For example, looking back in the times where money is just gold or olive oil, the most appropriate policy might
be feudalism or the like. Now we have money and international trade, it can be considered capitalism. In the future
where bank money becomes the general means of currency, changes can be made to modify our current system. Government
control over several market failures can be modified in the future. Allthough capitalism might have become an
appropriate economic policy, it will become obsolete in the future where our lifestyles and technology are
different.

Economy evolves; no policy will ever be permanently the best.

What you describe is still mixed market economy. A generally free flow of capital with certain government interventions,
present or future, is still the definition of a mixed economy, regardless of what specific form of currency is
used.

Acyx:

Theoretically, a true laissez-faire market economy does not need to "care" for the worker, because the flow of
labor capital will determine the required conditions that firms must provide in order for them to gain the necessary
labor capital from the worker. The firms will have demand for the supply of labor. The "laws of supply and
demand" in the resource market will determine the requisite "price" of labor, or wages as we normally
term it. In practice, of course, that may not be the case, but in theory true supply-demand dynamics has its
merits.

In order to completely make the economy free of de-regulations, as you support, then it is not merely the economic
system that must change, but also the form of government. If we reverse all deregulation to regulation, then we have a
planned economy more or less. From an efficiency perspective, an entirely planned economy lack the competitive edge to
survive. Both the original Soviet and Chinese models of planned and heavily regulated economies faultered against
foreign, free market competition. I think we have seen enough examples of the benefits of free market competition toward
economic, technological, and social development.

The solution to many problems, in my view, is to fine tune continuously what and by how much the government regulates in
a mixed economy. The real problem in what you have mentioned is not so much economic but rather the injection of
political objectives into economic policy. How we solve that, well, I think that's up to another debate.

No, It is not "Dead" Capitalism is still very much Alive. In my opinion still the best.

Captialism did not start the Stock Market Crash of 1929, The people did because they stoped buying and they all Sold
they're stock, how is that Capitalism's falt? Captialistic Country's are very rich, well most of them. It is better then
most others, such as Commusnism, Fashism, and some others. In my opinion Captialism is the Top and will remain as a top
kind of Govement. It doesnt matter if Bill Gates is a very Rich man. He did it all of those things.

going back to the topic question. capitalism is not the best economic ideology. and ideal economy requires ideal
citizens, and man is far from ideal. Take communism for example, if taken in its ideal state, it would work and benefit
everyone, but man is corrupt and corrupts what he touches. Capitalism was desigeined to minimize the corruption and keep
the economy running though it does have its issues. so, "ideally" capitalism is not the best choice, but in
reality (and due to man) it is one of the most pratical methods.

Quote by Heerothegreatgoing back to the topic question. capitalism is not
the best economic ideology. and ideal economy requires ideal citizens, and man is far from ideal. Take communism for
example, if taken in its ideal state, it would work and benefit everyone, but man is corrupt and corrupts what he
touches. Capitalism was desigeined to minimize the corruption and keep the economy running though it does have its
issues. so, "ideally" capitalism is not the best choice, but in reality (and due to man) it is one of the most
pratical methods.

I kind of agree with this. Communism is closer to an ideal economic system, but ideal systems do not fit the real world.
Capitalism works by taking advantage of people's greed and since it's base is something non-ideal, it cannot be ideal
either.

The ideology behind capitalism is that performance is rewarded. I work hard to make a product, and then I sell that
product at a value I deem reasonable to recompense the materials used and the time it took me to make it.

If I make an inferior product, and there are others in competition with me, those who make a superior product will
benefit and I will not.

Some miniscule government regulation to ensure that the products we purchase are safe and useable helps to give us a
serviceable society.

Man is not tainted. I'm tired of this idea of the rooted evil of mankind. Everyone (and I mean everyone) acts according to the enviroment where everyone lives and grows. Such as an animal has to adapt
to the enviroment in order to strive and survive, so does man. But, man has a difference: he can create his own
enviroment. He can modify the structures, so that there is no place for this 'rooted evil' everyone is out there talking
about. If we just remember that there are things that are actually wrong, that there are a set of morals that have to be followed to achieve universal convivence, we may see that it isn't
all fault of a supposed inner evil. If we just forget our everyday boundaries and dream of a world without the limits
that today's society presses on our minds, then we may be a step closer to a perfect society.

Capitalism is by no means the best system. The best system is that which makes everyone of us equal, and that where no
issues arrive (because, if it is the best, why would there be problems at all?). Capitalism is full of problems. And if
we say that it's the best we got so far, and we stop just with that statement, it means we can't look ahead of
ourselves. We have to see our problems, we have to fight, we have to strive to make a better society, to reform the
current structures so that less and less problems begin to arise. And I don't mean only enviromental issues, I mean
human issues too. Africa like we know it today is a big consecuence of capitalism. South America, where I live, is a
consecuence of Capitalism. And it ain't nice. But we have to believe that, always, where there are still problems, that
we can be better. If we can do that, many things will start to change.

John D. Rockefeller and Carnegie Melon both ran monopolies on there businesses and became rich while others suffered did
you know that America once owned 90% of the worlds oil supply due to the fact of Rockefeller? practically all off the
world was getting oil from us and we were prospering until the Great Depression all because of Laissez-Faire which is
why a Mixed Economy is much better

"Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest" -Mark Twain

Blame christians, WK. Just a way of throwing the blame off of themselves. At least it's gotten a little better in the
modern era, don't see too many go "Can't convict me! Devilmademedoit!" and get off nowadays.
Falls to lack of responsibilty or apathy, every time.

Quote by wanderingknightMan is not tainted. I'm tired of this idea of the
rooted evil of mankind. Everyone (and I mean everyone) acts according to the
enviroment where everyone lives and grows. Such as an animal has to adapt to the enviroment in order to strive and
survive, so does man. But, man has a difference: he can create his own enviroment. He can modify the structures, so that
there is no place for this 'rooted evil' everyone is out there talking about. If we just remember that there are things
that are actually wrong, that there are a set of morals that have to be followed
to achieve universal convivence, we may see that it isn't all fault of a supposed inner evil. If we just forget our
everyday boundaries and dream of a world without the limits that today's society presses on our minds, then we may be a
step closer to a perfect society.

Regardless of religion, accepting that humans are flawed creatures is pretty essential to living at all successfully,
and I don't see how this can be argued. Your theory seems to state that if everyone lived in the same ideal environment,
so-called human flaws would not manifest (forgive me if I interpreted this wrongly).

But any look at people growing up in similar homes, in similar neighborhoods shows they can result in very different
people, even people who live in the same home, go to the same school etc. There are the murderers who were never
mistreated or in want, came from good families, never got in trouble and such just as there are delinquent kids from
inner cities who become great religious or cummunity leaders.

Frankly I don't see how any environment can ever be made where all humans can get what they want, especially when so
much of what so many want effects what others want. If you want to make comparisons to animals the result is the same.
It doesn't matter what environment my pet dog is in or how well he is fed, he'll still hoard any food he gets and try to
snatch what he can from any other dog he can. Selfishness is as instinctual in humans as altruism is, if not more so,
hence the great paradox that is humanity.o_0

I think I agree with what one wise man once said (I forget who though unfortunately ^_^'), "Capitalism is the worst
form of government, except for all the other forms."